'But, if the allegation was unfounded - and based on my prior knowledge of that person'

how does anyone know but the person in question.

my own children then a straight NO.

best not to take the risk IMHO

 

so, hypothetical question:

'An allegation is made against your dad or your brother. But, the police don't bring charges and the investigation is closed'

Do you still let them babysit?

 

IMO the very fact that he had a string of allegations made against him should have put him on at least a "yellow card".

There are dozens of cases where people are involved in such cases but are aquitted. But they are one-offs.

You could look at it and say that he'd been unlucky and victimised in previous positions, in which case he'd be better off in another position... or that there's no smoke without fire, and refuse him the job on past allegations. Either way he doesn't get the job.

 

Headline: "Joe Soap once attempted to grope a 12 year old schoolgirl"
Sin-reader response: "Hang the peedo!"
Background: "Joe Soap was himself 12 years old at the time, and was at the school disco with a consenting 12 year old girl"

Headline: "Joe Soap denies rape allegation"
Sin-reader response: "Hang the perv"
Background: "Joe Soap was phoned at 02:00am by a Sin reporter who asked whether he had raped XYZZY. Joe Soap denies this, and asks what the **** the reporter is talking about. He denied something that never happened, but gets tarred!"

Insert many other scenarios...

Read beyond the headline!!!!

mb

 

Oh dear.

Answer me this:

How many of your family members, your friends, your work colleagues have ever been accused of that sort of behaviour even once? None of mine have.

So you have to admit that these accusations, whether proved or not, are rare, very rare.

And yet someone who'd had more than one accusation made against them, by different people is in your eyes, a tad unlucky?

Maybe, but most people with some level of common sense would be suspicious, and wouldn't want to risk the safety of children by allowing the person in question to work / live with them.

I have to say, that the increasing lack of common sense in people these days is a very concerning trait.

 

common sense prevails at last

i was beginning to wonder whether anyone had any

Duck Pond has concluded this piece in a nutshell.

to andrews question: if they were of a sexual nature I would not.

 

people with Andrews attitude towards these situations make me laugh ok i see what hes saying if a guy has been brought in for one sexual crime and had the charges droped maybe its a mistake but when hes got more than one alarm bells should at least be ringing ffs the problem is a lot of people in power have pc vews like andrews and it does put kids at risk big time

 

another man with common sense

this is another example where the human rights lobby raise my blood pressure

it is accpeptable for ian huntley to slip through the net since has no convictions (other than countless allegations!) and kill 2 children

go figure?

when will ppl finally realise protection of children is the primary concern rather than protecting adults human rights

 

Thats why our country is in a mess. Andrew is a prime example of the 'out of touch' twerps running it. Pathetic!

 

Agree, the rights of children and their right to be protected against the likes of Huntley far outweigh anything else.

Rules need to be updated and brought inline all over the country with sharing of information on this paramount.

 

anyway,its irrelevant,had they correctly passed on his burglary conviction he wouldnt have got the job,even without the other accusations,and someone didnt search his previous name,so even if they had it wouldnt have got picked up.

 

er....

popeye, I'm not running the country..hopefully you aren't either.

All I'm saying is that the reason he 'slipped through the net' is because he had *no* convictions. That's the way it is. If someone can come up with a better solution, I'd like to see it...

but I ain't seen it yet...and from the comments I've read so far, I'd better not hold my breath eh?

but hey, if you wanna hold me responsible for Soham, then fire away. Better to take it out on me than some poor innocent sod in 'real life'....so swing away with yer baseball bats, all you 'real men'.....

 

But Andrew, surely you can recognise the point being made that a man with not just one sex allegation against him, but multiple accusations, should be subject to intense scrutiny?

One factual point i'm not sure of though - if he had been conviced at any point, would the error of only checking him under the Nixon surname still have drawn a blank? In other words, would a conviction have been a guarantee of discovering his past?

 

No,because it was human error and management decisions that enabled him to slip through the net

 

Ah, i see, thanks.

Another case for personal id cards methinks. Especially in professions where children are concerned. They can't continue to trust to luck that Joe Bloggs in an office somewhere doesn't screw up again, surely?

 

tel - I understand what you're saying....with that many allegations and with the benefit of hindsight, the guy was obviously a dangerous loon..

But, all I've been trying to get across is that without a 'conviction' there's no obligation to keep records unless ordered by a judge. The obvious(?) answer is to have all allegations recorded on police files as a matter of principle. In which case, I (for instance) could make an allegation against you - and it wouldn't matter if it was true or not - but that allegation would be stuck on your file for ever and may harm your future...

 

That would obviously not be a satisfactory situation, granted.

But (and you'll have to forgive me my lack of knowledge in this area, as i haven't trawled the minutae relating to this case), if it isn't madatory for these records to be kept now, under what circumstances have we been able to learn of the previous allegations against Huntley?

 

good question.

I guess they must have dug up the old police 'incident report' sheets or something...

 

LOL at Andrew. Methinks you've come into the wrong part. This isn't the muppets. LMAO. Pathetic.

 

True
The burglary incident stayed on his record. The head teacher stated that he would not have employed Huntley on that basis IF he had known - Someone Fecked up badly!!!

Huntley had a string of allegations of sex offences against young girls aged 11-15. He got a job at a school with kids aged 11-17. He deliberately put himself in contact and a position of trust with kids. This man (I use that expression loosely) should never have been allowed to do so. Existing 'Intelligence' on him and the school asking for a check on him should have rung alarm bells.

This is not clever or ground breaking just common sense.

The school did what they could, ran a background check and employed him as he had a clean bill of health from the Police. Parents sent their kids to school in the knowledge that background checks have been performed and teacher etc cleared and their children are in safe hands, as safe as possible. This is not the case. Huntley just used two names, did not even hide the fact and he slipped through the net.

Our kids deserve better than this!

I hope there are no more 'Huntleys' who have slipped through as he did.

 

A young, good looking, perfectly innocent teacher is the subject of a crush by a teenage pupil, she brags to a friend she is having sex with him. This friend reports the matter to the police who investigate.

Case is closed as, during questioning by the police, the young girl denies any sexual relationship


How do you protect this teacher whilst still catching the likes of Huntley? Should this teacher never be able to get a job working with children again?

It's very easy to say Huntley should have 'been caught'. It is not easy to devise a system that works for everyone.

All the things proposed to catch out sickos like him also target the innocent.

I don't know the answer, and I've not read it here yet either

 

popeye - stop it, you pointless troll...

if you can't have a reasoned argument, then p1ss off to muppets yourself...

 

The answer is the dam law. How many times must we allow serial offenders albeit burglary/car theft/child molesters to continue their rampage against the innocent? The law at present harbours these scum whilst little justice is given to the law abiding citizen who is unlucky enough to end up dead through their actions.

2 examples:-13 yr old 'persistent' drink driver kills 2 teenage girls through dangerous driving. He gets 8 years!!!! What a joke!

Man kills his 2 year old baby throwing it against the wall. This is intent yet he gets off on a manslaughter charge. Another joke!

Too many loopholes in our system!!!!!

Pops- hes back with vengeance to protect the innocent against the liberal do-gooders like andrew!

 

'All the things proposed to catch out sickos like him also target the innocent.'

That sentence summed it all up really. Maybe a few innocents will get wrongly accused but no system is full proof. If you can incaracerate the majority of pervs then it will save more innocent lives in the long run. Sry but true.

Pops- unstoppable.

 

Popeye,

this wasnt a problem with the law,it was a problem with interpretation of the law and simple human error

 

these **** ups happen too often though

the law is the problem

 

'this wasnt a problem with the law,it was a problem with interpretation of the law'

Isn't that a problem then?

Pops- vote for a new start

 

Part of the problem is that this should not be open to interpretation and the powers that be MUST have a thorough undertanding and then put it into practice.

This is too important, we are not dealing with shoplifters or bag snatchers here, when they offend they might knick a wooley jumper from Next or pinch a handbag.

Pedofiles ruin kids lives or worse kill them.

Same for all sex offenders but pedo's are the lowest of the low IMHO.

 

Put what into practise though Paul?

 

Mooe
I mean the Data Protection Act although not just that any other areas as well.